Dental Fillings/Mercury Amalgams

Quecksilber - The Strange Story of Dental Amalgam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90GzWgZCz7M&feature=share&list=UL90GzWgZCz7M

Mercury Vapour is invisible, odourless & tasteless




Mercury is released from amalgam fillings ALL OF THE TIME. It does not matter if the filling is new or old. Take a look at the mercury vapour released from a 25 year old amalgam filling. The rate of release is increased by a number of factors:



1 - Friction and Heat - causes a rapid increase in the amount of mercury released and this elevated level stays elevated for about 90 minutes and then gradually eases off. Too bad for those of us that like to eat a few meals, perhaps a cup or two of hot coffee and then the rest of the time chewing gum.

2- When gold is in the same mouth as amalgam a battery will be created using the saliva in your mouth as the electrolyte. Thus there will be a steady movement of electrons with currents that are in the order of a thousand times that of the brain (just a couple of inches away). This current will also cause an increase in the amount o f mercury released from the amalgam (24/7) about four fold.

3- various levels of acidity will also increase the mercury release from amalgam.



Mercury escapes from amalgam in the forms of mercury vapour, elemental mercury and mercury ions.

The rate of release of mercury is increased by an increase in temperature, friction and electrical currents. Elevated levels remain for about 90 minutes after such stimulation.



The dental authorities claim only minute amounts of mercury are released from dental amalgam. It is important however to put this 'small amount' into a context of toxicological effects (PDF). 1 microgram is 0.000001 of a gram. The number of zeros after a decimal point has absolutely no meaning toxicologically.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dental amalgam is the greatest source of mercury to the general population. (WHO Criteria 118 published 1991). This was the first time that the WHO included dental amalgam as a dietary source of mercury. The figures speak for themselves. Criteria 118 states that the general population ingest mercury from the following sources on an average daily intake;



Air and Water 0mcg/day

Other Foods 0.3mcg/day

Fish and Sea food 2.3mcg/day

Dental Amalgam 3 - 17mcg/day

The figure for dental amalgam was revised in 2003 and raised to 27mcg/day

In other words dental amalgam is the single greatest source of mercury to human beings than all other sources combined, including sea food.

In fact it is 10 times greater than all other sources combined.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



the 'No Observable Effects Level' or 'NOEL'

is still set at 0 mcg Hg/m3.



In other words there is NO safe level of mercury vapour!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service - (Toxicological Profile for Mercury (Update) [ATSDR. TP-93/10]. Nov. 1994) have listed on their Internet site the top 20 most hazardous substances.



Mercury is number 3 after arsenic and lead.

It ranks above DDT, Dieldrin and Cadmium.



.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Maximum Allowable

Mercury Vapour Concentrations

are set by various government organisations.

The levels for Australia and the USA are



Maximum Allowable Mercury Vapour Levels OSHA - Occupational Safety & Health Association for a 40 hour per week time weighted average 50 mcg/m3

US Environmental Protection Agency for everyone not exposed occupationally 0.3 mcg/m3

Agency Toxic Substances & Disease Registry This is the level they state will cause observable physiological effects when there is a trasient exposure 0.02 mcg/m3

NOEL - No Observable Effects Level set by WHO 1991 0



Compare this to levels of mercury found in mouths and dental surgeries





Actual Measured Levels

In a mouth with 6 amalgam fillings 20-120 mcg/m3

Opening a mixed amalgam capsule 1000 mcg/m3

Drilling amalgam fillings - 18 inches from the mouth 4000 mcg/m3



the following charts the levels at which these situation

exceed the official maximum levels;



In a mouth with 6 amalgam fillings 24/7 Opening a mixed amalgam capsule Drilling amalgam fillings - 18 inches from the mouth

Occupational Safety & Health Association N/A up to 2x 20x 80x

Environmental Protection Agency 400x 3,333x 13,333x

Agency Toxic Substances & Disease Registry 6,000x 50,000x 200,000x



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







The results published by the IAOMT show that;



When cutting amalgam with a high speed drill, the levels of mercury vapour 18 inches from the mouth, can exceed 4,000mcg/m3



When the nurse opens a freshly mixed amalgam capsule the level of mercury vapour she (and the rest of the surgery) will be exposed to is 1,000 mcg/m3. This is 200 times above OSHA standards and 50,000 above the ATSDR levels.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The level of Mercury in liver, kidney and brain tissue

of deceased Foetus, new-born and young children is

... Proportional to the Number of Amalgam Fillings

in the Mother’s Mouth!"



Drasch G Schupp I Hofl H Reinke R Roider G

Eur J Pediatr (1994 Aug.) 153(8):607-10







"These results show that amalgam fillings release silver as well

.........Silver is a reliable marker for the fact that the elevated

concentrations of inorganic mercury found in tissues of people

with amalgam filings, derive mainly from these fillings and

not from other theoretically possible sources."



Drasch et. al. J Trace Elements

in Medicine and Biology; 9(2):82-7, 1995









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The TDI or tolerable daily intake is regarded as what would be

tolerable level for the most sensitive groups in our society.



ASSESMENT OF MERCURY EXPOSURE AND RISKS FROM DENTAL AMALGAM

by G. Mark Richardson PhD., Medical Devices Bureau, Environmental Health Directorate, Health Canada Executive Summary 1995. (adopted by Health Canada in 1996)



"The number of amalgam fillings, for each age group,

estimated to cause exposure equivalent to the TDI were:



1 filling in toddlers;

1 filling in children;

3 fillings in teens;

and 4 fillings in adults and seniors."



One amalgam filling is all that is required

to go over the TDI for mercury for todlers and children!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Health Canada’s Recommendations





Concerning the Use of Dental Amalgam (Health Canada, 1996a)



1. Non-mercury filling materials should be considered for restoring the primary teeth of children where the mechanical properties of the material are suitable.



2. Whenever possible, amalgam fillings should not be placed in or removed from the teeth of pregnant women.



3. Amalgam should not be placed in patients with impaired kidney function.



4. In placing and removing amalgam fillings, dentists should use techniques and equipment to minimize the exposure of the patient and ;the dentist to mercury vapour, and to prevent amalgam waste from being flushed into municipal sewage systems.



5. Dentists should advise individuals who may have allergic hypersensitivity to mercury to avoid the use of amalgam. In patients who have developed hypersensitivity to amalgam, existing amalgam restorations should be replaced with another material where this is recommended by a physician.



6. New amalgam fillings should not be placed in contact with existing metal devices in the mouth, such as braces.



7. Dentists should provide their patients with sufficient information to make an informed choice regarding the material used to fill their teeth, including information on the risks and benefits of the material and suitable alternatives.



8. Dentists should acknowledge the patient’s right to decline treatment with any dental material.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Swedish Government report of 2003 states:

"With reference to the fact that mercury is a multipotent toxin

with effects on several levels of the biochemical dynamics of the cell,

amalgam must be considered to be an

unsuitable material for dental restoration.



This is especially true since

fully adequate and less toxic

alternatives are available."





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sweden, Norway and Denmark have now

totally banned the use of mercury amalgam







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On 7 January 2003, the Superior Court in San Francisco

approved the warnings on dental amalgam mercury

that are required under California's Proposition 65



"Warning on dental amalgam,

used in many dental fillings,

causes exposure to mercury,

a chemical known to the state of California to cause

birth defects or other reproductive harm."







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Australian Risk Assessment

of Mercury Exposure

from Dental Amalgam



Published August 2000 Prepared by Chem Affairs Pty Ltd PO Box 890 Lane Cove NSW 1595 Published August 2000



This risk assessment was commissioned by the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, as part of a series of recommendations put forward by a working party which was set up in 1998 to assess the literature about the dangers of mercury from dental amalgam. In point 8 of the Executive Summary the following is stated:



"Amalgam removal has been shown to be effective in reducing mercury levels

to the levels of those in people without amalgam fillings. Chelation

treatment has also reduced levels in the short-term….in one case

report, amalgam removal has reduced a very high urine mercury level to a

normal level. This change was accompanied by a decline in symptoms………."





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dental amalgam cannot be disposed of

in the sewerage, waste water or regular garbage

It must by law be disposed of by

Toxic Waste Disposal experts



Throughout the world,

dental amalgam is considered

to be a Toxic Waste Product

(it is substantially more toxic than asbestos)





There is only one place on earth

that it is regarded as "SAFE"

and that is

In the mouths of

LIVING HUMAN BEINGS



Crematoria add at least 11kg of Mercury to the environment

per chimney per year.

Don't live downwind from a crematorium.




As of Dec 2009 the Australian Dental Association

continues to cling to the old line.

How can the following statement

from the ADA web site be justified?

The Evil that men do...and women

LANSING RESIDENTIAL SURVEILLANCE


AND ITS INTRUSION ON PRIVACY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................3

Background: Camera Surveillance in Lansing....................................................................................................3

Surveillance Camera Networks Are Ineffective.................................................................................................5

Crime Deterrence is a Myth...............................................................................................................................5

Insignificant Assistance with Criminal Investigations...................................................................................7

Surveillance Cameras Are Expensive....................................................................................................................8

Camera Surveillance Undermines Privacy and Harms Democratic Values..............................................8

The Right to Be Let Alone..................................................................................................................................8

The Chilling Effect................................................................................................................................................9

I

nnocent Behavior in Public........................................................................................................................9

I

mpacting Our Protected Speech..............................................................................................................9

The Potential for Police Abuse..........................................................................................................................10

Disparate Impact on People of Color...............................................................................................................11

Recommendations......................................................................................................................................................12

Recommendation 1: Immediate Removal of All Residential Lansing Surveillance Cameras..............12

Recommendation 2: Alternative Crime-Fighting Tools...............................................................................12

Recommendation 3: High Quality Statistical Evaluations...........................................................................12

Recommendation 4: Self-Audit to Monitor and Enforce Policy and Procedural Safeguards.............13

Recommendation 5: Neighborhood Involvement and Approval...............................................................13

Getting Involved..........................................................................................................................................................13

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is about government camera surveillance in the residential neighborhoods of Lansing, Michigan. Although cameras have been placed across the country in banks, airports, malls, and downtown areas for some years now, they have not traditionally been used by the government to watch residents in neighborhoods. This report questions the effectiveness of residential cameras and discusses the cost and negative effects of neighborhood video surveillance, including the invasion of residents’ privacy and the disparate impact on African American residents. It also offers recommendations for workable crime-fighting alternatives in Lansing and other cities considering camera surveillance.

The report’s findings and conclusions are summarized as follows:

Surveillance Camera Networks Are Ineffective

• A growing body of research and literature from the United Kingdom and cities across the United States, including Lansing, finds no conclusive evidence that camera surveillance decreases or prevents violent crimes.

• The use of surveillance cameras has no significant impact on the rate of solving major crimes. Evidence shows that government surveillance cameras have minimal investigative utility. Most crimes that have taken place in the purview of a camera have not been solved.

• Rhetoric on camera surveillance encourages the public belief that cameras will make them safer. However, empirical research on public perception and acceptance of camera surveillance indicates that increased perceptions of safety are not supported by actual reductions in crime.

Surveillance Cameras Are Expensive

• The use of surveillance cameras is not justified given the costs associated with installing, maintaining, and operating such an ineffective crime-fighting tool.

Camera Surveillance Undermines Privacy and Democratic Values

• Privacy, particularly in and around the home, has always been of particular importance to Americans. Being subject to round-the-clock government monitoring in our neighborhoods, and on our front porches, is inconsistent with fundamental democratic values and beliefs.

• Knowing that they are being watched, innocent residents may alter their lawful behavior. The effect is to “chill” innocuous speech, limit whom we are willing to associate with in our neighborhoods, and homogenize our citizenry.

• Camera surveillance impacts our democratic rights to political association and protest by making individuals feel that the government is suspicious of their participation in activities protected by the Constitution. It thus inhibits democratic participation.

• Information gathered about people by camera operators could be, and in other locations has been, used for inappropriate purposes, like voyeurism, stalking, or harassment. Video surveillance provides access to personal information, creating numerous opportunities for abuse.

• Policies governing the Lansing camera surveillance program designed to safeguard privacy and individual rights have been ignored in some cases. For example, some posted notices that neighborhoods are being monitored by surveillance cameras have been removed. Similarly, procedures to maintain a log of people who access the camera images are no longer being followed, making it harder to detect potential abuses.

• Lansing’s African American population is disproportionately monitored by surveillance cameras. As a result, communities of color may feel separated and targeted by the government instead of feeling protected by it. This can adversely impact community relations.

2

Recommendations

1. Lansing officials charged with authorizing and implementing camera surveillance should halt the expansion of video surveillance and remove existing residential cameras.

2. Lansing officials should explore and expand the use of alternate crime-fighting tools.

3. If surveillance cameras are to be used, they should be used only if high quality statistical evaluations provide credible evidence that they reduce crime in Lansing, strict privacy protections are in place, and they are removed after a limited period.

4. If surveillance cameras are to be used, Lansing Police Department (LPD) should conduct an annual self-audit for compliance with surveillance camera operational policies and procedures that safeguard individual rights. The results should be reported to the community.

5. Future decisions on surveillance cameras should be made with active community involvement.

3

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the United States is witnessing a dramatic increase in the use of government camera surveillance to watch, follow, and record its citizens. Citing crime and terrorism as major concerns, cities across the country are deploying massive and expensive projects to install cameras without any evidence of their effectiveness. More importantly, the negative impact the cameras have on people’s privacy is rarely questioned.

It is this primary concern that makes Lansing’s surveillance scheme particularly alarming. While most cities’ surveillance systems are fixed in downtown areas, Lansing’s has gone so far as to creep into residential neighborhoods, further amplifying the damage to people’s privacy.

In light of these issues, the primary purpose of this report is to raise awareness about the negative effects of residential video surveillance in the United States and, more specifically, in Lansing, Michigan. Additionally, this report serves to detail the dangers of living in a surveillance society, what it means to lose our privacy, and why residential video surveillance does little to protect our safety. It concludes with a set of recommendations for Lansing and for other communities that are considering the installation or expansion of public surveillance camera systems.

BACKGROUND: CAMERA SURVEILLANCE IN LANSING

In March 2008, with the approval of the Lansing City Council, the Lansing Police Department (LPD) began operating its first set of surveillance cameras in residential neighborhoods.1 Installed with the purpose of “enhanc[ing] safety,”2 the 26 surveillance cameras, or closed-circuit television (CCTV),3 now operate at 12 locations throughout the city. This LPD surveillance network is expanding in nonresidential areas. The LPD currently monitors and receives feeds from cameras owned and controlled by the Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA) at the CATA bus station. In 2011, the LPD installed computers at four state-owned and -operated facilities, to connect to existing surveillance cameras. Plans are to install additional surveillance cameras in parking lots outside the three Lansing high schools, with both the high schools and the LPD monitoring these cameras.4

The technological capacity of modern surveillance cameras is extraordinary. Early surveillance cameras used mostly in downtown areas were crude, low-definition, black-and-white systems with no ability to zoom, pan, or tilt. These cameras could “see” only as far as the human eye, if that far. Modern cameras, however, are much more sophisticated, fundamentally changing the nature of video surveillance. Today’s surveillance units in residential Lansing not only provide a 360-degree view of the area up to 500 feet, but also have zoom capabilities.5 Each day, the cameras engage in 24-hour viewing and imaging6 of the surrounding area utilizing high-definition color, night vision, and focus features that resolve minute detail

1 Ryan Loew, New Cameras Up, Running, Lansing State Journal, May 1, 2008, at 1B.

2 Id.

3 CCTV (as opposed to open-circuit television) broadcasts on a closed network that is not available for public viewing.

4 Interview with Ray Hall, North Precinct Captain, Lansing Police Department, in Lansing, Mich. (Oct. 22, 2009); and Interview with Ray Hall, Captain, Lansing Police Department, in Lansing, Mich. (June 28, 2011).

5 Id.

6 Interview with Ray Hall, North Precinct Captain, Lansing Police Department, in Lansing, Mich. (Feb. 27, 2009).

4

in even the most severe environmental conditions.7 This means that the Lansing cameras give police the ability to read words on a piece of paper in someone’s hand within 50 feet, clearly discern a license plate that is 300 feet away, or recognize a face at 400 feet.8

The LPD has three camera viewing stations. The central command station is staffed by a light-duty officer who monitors live surveillance camera images on closed-circuit television screens.9 There, the monitoring officer can override the “tour” feature and focus on anything within the viewing area.10 Although the cameras are not monitored 24 hours a day, everything viewed by the cameras is digitally recorded and stored on hard drives for two weeks or more.11 There is a second camera viewing station at the detectives’ unit. Dispatch (911) has a third viewing station, so that the person receiving live calls from the community can also access the cameras.12

“Privacy zones” – defined by the LPD as windows of homes and other “non-public areas” – are not recorded.13 Still, while most private windows have been blocked from viewing, many front stoops and fenced backyards were only blocked after the ACLU’s recommendation to do so.14 Further, these blocks could be removed at any time without notice to the public.15

Many technological changes have been made to more closely monitor individuals in Lansing. For example, most of the surveillance cameras were initially running on digital subscriber lines (DSL); now, the LPD is using fiber optic technology at some locations in order to augment the cameras’ already impressive visual quality.16 Moreover, all police cruisers have been equipped with laptop computers which allow patrolling officers to receive live video feed via wireless networks from the surveillance cameras set up throughout the city.17

The LPD claims that it decides where to place surveillance cameras based on crime rates, the nature of crimes taking place at certain locations, and neighborhood requests. “There is no set formula,” says Captain Ray Hall, “but the driving force is the crime numbers.”18 Still, many residents believe that the cameras are “a waste of time” and do little to deter crime.19

According to the chief radio technician at the precinct, catching littering and public urination have been amongst the most frequent uses of camera footage.20 Capt. Hall similarly commented that the cameras are best able to deal with “quality of life crimes” like open alcohol.21

No major violent crimes have been solved by the use of cameras, including the homicide of a Lansing teenager in one of the areas under surveillance. According to records provided to the ACLU by the LPD, since 2008 the only significant crime where cameras may have helped lead to an arrest was a suspected breaking and entering in June 2011. In that case, a resident called 911 to report a break-in in progress and, after viewing the cameras, the LPD sent a patrol car to the location. However, even in that case, it is difficult to determine whether the suspect would have been arrested without the cameras.

7 Lansing Police Dept. Operational Procedure, Public Video System, No. 600-55, at 3 (Nov. 9, 2007) [hereinafter Operational Procedure 600-55].

8 Loew, supra , note 1; and Interview with Jeff Kludy, Chief Technician, Lansing Police Department, in Lansing, Mich. (June 28, 2011).

9 Hall (Oct. 22, 2009), supra, note 4.

10 Id.

11 Id.

12 Hall (June 28, 2011), supra, note 4.

13 Loew , supra, note 1, and Kludy (June 28, 2011), supra, note 8.

14 Hall (Oct. 22, 2009), supra, note 4.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Kevin Grasha, Patrol Cars in Lansing Getting High-Tech Upgrades, Lansing State J., June 13, 2009, at 1B; Interview with Jeff Kludy (June 28, 2011), supra ,note 8.

18 Hall (Oct. 22, 2009), supra, note 4.

19 Loew, supra, note 1 (quoting Lansing resident Carl Tielking).

20 Interview with Jeff Kludy, Chief Radio Technician, Lansing Police Department, in Lansing, Mich. (Oct. 22, 2009).

21 Hall (June 28, 2011), supra, note 4.

5

SURVEILLANCE CAMERA NETWORKS ARE INEFFECTIVE

Crime Deterrence is a Myth

“The evidence-base is unreliable . . . [and] has been misunderstood, misused, or even ignored by policy-makers in the policy process . . . it becomes increasingly difficult to explain . . . [camera surveillance] as a rational . . . policy.”

—Dr. William Webster, Camera Surveillance Expert

Proponents of camera surveillance commonly argue that the presence of surveillance cameras deters crime. Indeed, the LPD has stated that it installed cameras in order to “protect the safety and property of the City of Lansing.”22 Such surveillance initiatives based on deterrence aim at making potential criminals aware that they are being monitored, and aware that the video monitoring will increase their risk of arrest.23 In short, the deterrence theory posits that camera surveillance reduces crime because potential offenders will refrain from engaging in criminal activity where cameras are located.

However, there is little if any evidence that video surveillance actually reduces the incidence of crime. Indeed, numerous cities across the country and abroad have found the effects of video surveillance to be unpredictable, at best.

For example, in a comprehensive study commissioned by the City of San Francisco, researchers found no evidence that surveillance cameras decreased violent crimes, drug incidents, prostitution, vandalism, or other “suspicious occurrences.”24 Moreover, the study found that homicide patterns surrounding the cameras before, during, and after camera installation remained consistent.25

In another study, researchers from the University of Southern California examined Los Angeles’s surveillance system. Like Lansing, the Los Angeles Police Department installed cameras in specific “high crime” areas where officers could view camera footage in “real time.”26 The researchers found no statistically significant reduction for any crime in the surveillance areas.27 Furthermore, the footage did not produce a statistically significant change in the rate of arrests for misdemeanor “quality of life” infractions like littering or graffiti painting.28

Lessons can be learned from other countries as well. Since the 1980s, the United Kingdom has led the world in camera surveillance use. Yet the UK’s estimated 4.2 million cameras29 – more than any other country in the world – have had a minimal deterrent effect. A comprehensive study conducted for the Home Office30 in 2005 found that the majority of its surveillance initiatives did not reduce

22 Operational Procedure 600-55, supra, note 7, at 1.

23 Wade Deisman et al., Surveillance Camera Awareness Network, A Report on Camera Surveillance in Canada 14 (2009).

24 Jennifer King, Deirdre Mulligan & Steven Raphael, Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society, An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of San Francisco’s Community Safety Cameras 11-12 (2008), available at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/police/commission/CITRIS_SF_CSC_Stud_Final_Dec_2008.pdf [hereinafter CITRIS Report]. A key qualification here is that the San Francisco Police Department does not monitor its cameras in real time. Id. at 15. Interestingly, they cite this policy as being in the interest of civil rights protection. Id. However, the Lansing Police Department claims that the cameras produce a deterrent effect by their mere presence, regardless of monitoring. See Operational Procedure 600-55, supra, note 7.

25 CITRIS Report at 11.

26 Aundreia Cameron et al., California Research Bureau, Measuring the Effects of Video Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles 4 (2008), available at http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/08/08-007.pdf.

27 Id. at 46.

28 Id. at 29. These crimes are “victimless” and would normally go unreported. One would expect an increase in the arrest rate for these crimes due to the watching eye of the cameras. However, the Los Angeles data disproves this hypothesis.

29 Michael McCahill & Clive Norris, Urbaneye Project, CCTV in London 20 (2002), available at http://www.urbaneye.net/results/ue_wp6.pdf.

30 The United Kingdom’s Home Office is the federal government department responsible for immigration, security, crime, and counter-terrorism. One of its official primary stated goals is to reduce crime.

See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/purpose-and-aims/index.html.

6

crime.31 Moreover, the study concluded that even where crime did decline, it was not due to cameras.32 Conventional wisdom predicts the opposite, of course. But despite London’s having approximately 500,000 surveillance cameras, its “Ring of Steel” has hardly cut crime.33 Rather, the UK’s near 30-year affair with camera surveillance has verified that it simply does not work.

Several cities have heeded the evidence and abandoned their video surveillance plans. In Oakland, California, the police department advocated for surveillance cameras for three years until finally coming to terms with their limited effectiveness.34 Chief of Police Joseph Samuels, Jr. concluded that “...there is no conclusive way to establish that the presence of video surveillance cameras resulted in the prevention or reduction of crime.”35 Here in Michigan, officials in the City of Detroit approved one of the largest video surveillance systems in the country, only to eliminate it 14 years later.36 Their reasoning: the high maintenance and personnel costs did not justify the minimal results.37

Responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the LPD have also been inconclusive with respect to deterrence of criminal activity. In the most recent study of public video surveillance camera analysis for 2009 and 2010, of the 12 camera locations, major crime actually increased within the 500-foot viewing range at five of the 12 camera locations.38 In three of the other camera locations, while crime was down within the 500-foot viewing area, it had increased in the 500- to 1,000-foot range.39 These mixed results took place even with increased community policing in four of the locations and additional community-building efforts.

Measuring the success of camera surveillance in Lansing requires more than noting a rise or fall in crime numbers. Various factors – like more police officers on patrol, neighborhood watches, better lighting, and overall population decreases – can affect crime and must be taken into account when conducting analyses. In fact, Capt. Hall said that any reduction in crime in an area where the cameras are installed cannot be attributed to the cameras alone. In several areas where crime cameras were installed, a community policing officer has also been assigned and there has been increased community involvement. The LPD’s crime analysis does not address why crime increased in certain areas where there are surveillance cameras, nor does it effectively measure the possible effects of crime displacement to areas beyond the 1,000-foot range. Indeed, while raw statistics show that the number of violent crimes has gone down in certain areas, the statistics concurrently show that the number of active neighborhood watches has gone up.40 In effect, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the Lansing residential cameras have been successful.

Despite this lack of evidence, the City of Lansing has installed surveillance cameras with the stated purpose of reducing crime, raising serious questions about the rationale for their use. The LPD Operational Procedure recommends frequent analyses. However, without further studies performed by established researchers, the ability of surveillance cameras to deter crime remains questionable, as does the foundation for its implementation.

31 Martin Gill & Angela Spriggs, Home Office Research, Assessing the Impact of CCTV 115 (2005).

32 Id.

33 In reaction to the August 1993 bombing of Bishopsgate in London by the Irish Republican Army, the city installed – among other measures – numerous surveillance cameras around the city’s financial district. The security and surveillance cordon surrounding London is now popularly referred to as the “Ring of Steel.”

34 Jane Black, When Cameras Are Too Candid, Business Week, Sept. 26, 2002, http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2002/tc20020926_9020.htm.

35 Id.

36 Walter M. Cummins & George G. Gordon, Programming Our Lives: Television and American Identity 177 (Praeger Publishers) (2006).

37 Id.

38 Lansing Stat April 2011, Report for Chief’s Review

39 The LPD chose the 1,000-foot range to track whether crime is being displaced just outside the viewing area of the cameras or whether dispersion had taken place.

40 Freedom of Information Act Response from Brig Smith, City Attorney, City of Lansing (Dec. 7, 2009) (enclosing documents related to Lansing crime statistics).

7

Insignificant Assistance with Criminal Investigations

“Only one crime was solved by each 1000 . . . [surveillance] cameras in London last year.”

—BBC News, August 24, 2008

The local news often shows private surveillance camera footage of crimes that have recently occurred in buildings. They show us bank robberies and holdups at convenience stores, and in some cases conclude their report by telling us that thanks to the surveillance cameras, the criminals have been identified and found. Unfortunately, what news reports do not tell us is how infrequently the criminal is actually apprehended as a result of govenment surveillance cameras in public areas.

Washington, D.C.’s surveillance initiative serves as a prime example of how rarely surveillance cameras assist with making arrests. The District began installing surveillance cameras over eight years ago, yet the 74 cameras located in high-crime residential areas have had a particularly dismal crime-solving record. In response to a 2007 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the National Capital Area ACLU, the D.C. police admitted that surveillance footage had never been used to make an arrest.41

Cross-listing unsolved murders with D.C.’s camera locations, Huffington Post reporter Arthur Delaney42 has discovered numerous unsolved homicides that have taken place within just one block of a surveillance camera; he cites an east Capitol Hill murder on April 22, 2008, as an example.43 Evidently, while a camera had been installed in 2006 at the very intersection of the crime, First District Commander David Kamperin reported a month later that “[t]he viewing from the . . . [cameras] was not helpful.”44 This surely came as no surprise to the community – despite having surveillance cameras there, a murder that followed a drive-by shooting in July 2007 at the very same intersection has also remained unsolved.45

Cities with far more experience than D.C., like London, UK, have also found no correlation between surveillance cameras and crime-solving. In 2007, figures released under public record requests from the London boroughs, the Metropolitan Police Service, and public transport authorities demonstrated “no link” between camera surveillance and crime-solving rates in London.46 Similarly, an internal police report released in 2009 found that it took 1,000 cameras to solve just one crime.47 “The Metropolitan Police [have] been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of [camera surveillance],” said David Davis, former shadow home secretary. “It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.”48

The surveillance cameras are not seen as having provided significant value to the LPD in investigations of major cases, with the possible exception of one arrest in connection with a recent breaking and entering.49 Studies in city after city continue to show that officers fail to bring criminals to justice even after they have been captured on film and identified. However, the publicity surrounding the infrequent but high profile cases involving camera surveillance creates a false sense among the public that cameras are effective. In reality, camera surveillance fails as an investigative aid, just as it fails to deter.

41 Arthur Delaney, The Watchmen: How Useless Are the D.C. Police Department’s Crime Cameras?, Wash. City Paper, Feb. 11, 2009, at 2-3.

42 Arthur Delaney has been a reporter with the Huffington Post since March 2009.

43 Delaney, supra, note 43, at 4. Delaney lists seven more unsolved homicides all within one block of surveillance cameras.

44 Id.

45 Id.

46 Peter Sayer, CCTV Cameras Don’t Solve Crimes, Say London Politicians, IDG News Service, Sep 21, 2007, at 1.

47 BBC News, 1,000 Cameras ‘Solve One Crime’, Aug. 24, 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8219022.stm.

48 Id.

49 Hall (June 28, 2011), supra, note 4.

8

SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS ARE EXPENSIVE

A 2007 article in the Lansing State Journal stated that the proposed cost for Lansing surveillance cameras was $350,000 for 11 units,50 but in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the LPD stated in December 2009 that they had “no records” of how much the installation and maintenance of the cameras cost.51 Thus, though the LPD received private donations totaling $63,520,52 we do not know how the remaining $286,480 was paid or if the cameras cost even more. Moreover, in order to stream video footage to all patrolling police, Lansing spent another $1.5 million to install laptop computers and digital video cameras in their police cruisers.53 Utility costs and miscellaneous expenses for operation, and maintenance costs for 2009 and 2010, when the cameras were still under a three-year warranty, were approximately $171,000.54 In total, the Lansing surveillance system has cost the city at least $2.3 million. The cost of maintenance is expected to increase this year when the three-year warranties on the cameras expire,55 further calling into question the continued use of surveillance cameras.

CAMERA SURVEILLANCE UNDERMINES PRIVACY AND HARMS DEMOCRATIC VALUES

The Right to Be Let Alone

To many Americans, the constitutional right against unreasonable “search and seizure” conjures up images of police breaking into homes and confiscating whatever they deem appropriate. This portrait is, of course, correct. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution56 was written to limit this specific governmental power – the power to invade an individual’s privacy. However, as time and technology have progressed, the government’s ability to invade privacy has advanced, taking the form of wiretaps, electronic bugs, and surveillance cameras.

The Fourth Amendment was crafted to protect Americans’ “right to be let alone.”57 It has always been accepted that the Fourth Amendment protects people against government intrusion into their homes. With the advent of electronic surveillance and eavesdropping technologies, the Supreme Court has recognized that people also have privacy rights outside the home. Noting that the Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places,”58 the Court held that “what [a person] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”59

Whether or not a “search” has occurred depends on whether an individual has an “expectation of privacy . . . that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’”60 Thus, with respect to camera surveillance, the question is whether it is “reasonable” for individuals today to expect to be watched by technologically advanced, covert government surveillance the moment they leave their homes 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The answer to this question should be “NO.” Clearly, individuals can expect to be seen by pedestrians or

50 Op-Ed., Cameras: City Need to Venture Into New Tools In Its Fight Against Crime, Lansing State Journal., Sept. 21, 2007, at 4A.

51 Letter from John M. Roberts, Chief Deputy City Attorney, City of Lansing, to author (Dec. 7, 2009) (on file with author).

52 Id.

53 Grasha, supra, note 17.

54 Letter from Donald J. Kulhanek, Assistant City Attorney dated May 26, 2011, in response to a FOIA request.

55 Kludy (June 28, 2011), supra, note 8.

56 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

57 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

58 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967). Government officials attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a public telephone booth to overhear Katz transmit illegal wagering information. The government did not have a warrant, but argued that since they did not physically penetrate the booth or search “tangible property,” they did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that by paying a toll and shutting the door behind him, Katz was “entitled to assume that the words he utter[ed] into the mouthpiece [would] not be broadcast to the world.”

59 Id. at 351-352.

60 Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring).

9

police officers patrolling the street, but it is not reasonable for people to expect the presence of high tech government surveillance cameras tracking their movements block-by-block in residential neighborhoods. In 1987, before becoming Michigan’s governor, Jennifer Granholm wrote, “In [your] home, it is reasonable to expect almost total privacy, and [you] take some vestige of that privacy with [you] when [you] walk across Woodward Avenue.”61

When installing cameras in neighborhoods, the LPD adopted procedures requiring that signs be posted in neighborhoods that are under surveillance. The government cannot abolish residents’ legitimate expectation of privacy by simply giving notice that it is violating their rights by conducting intrusive, round-the-clock camera surveillance. 62 Nonetheless, it is worthy of note that on a recent drive by two camera locations,63 neither an ACLU observer nor a LPD official could find signs near several of the cameras. Subsequently, LPD reviewed the placement of the signs, ordered ten additional signs, and lowered the height of some existing signs that were above pedestrians’ eye level.64

The Chilling Effect

“If we can never be sure whether or not we are being watched and listened to, all our actions will be altered and our very character will change.”

—Vice President Hubert Humphrey

Chilling Innocent Behavior in Public

How would you act if a police officer followed you around on the street with a video camera? The effect of such pervasive tracking causes people to act increasingly nervous, inhibited, and overwhelmingly “normal.” Disturbingly, because camera surveillance does not deter criminals from committing crime, it appears that its deterrence effects implicate the wrong people: law-abiding citizens engaging in innocent behavior in public. A woman may be hesitant to kiss her partner because she knows a local police officer is watching; individuals late to an appointment may walk instead of run for fear of looking suspicious; and a neighborhood resident may think twice before sunbathing in her previously private backyard. Indeed, camera surveillance homogenizes our citizenry and risks the suppression of innocuous, open behavior that has been the cornerstone of America’s free and expressive democratic society. It also changes the fundamental expectations and mindset of citizens in a democratic society as to whether they are being watched in everyday life.

Chilling Protected Speech

Government surveillance cameras not only pose risks to social activity, but also to the constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech, religion and association. Since September 11, 2001, government surveillance has chilled free speech and the free exercise of religion for thousands of Americans.65 Many citizens and lawful residents have feared protesting the war in Iraq or attending religious services at their local mosques, concerned that the government will record their activities with video surveillance and brand them as traitors or terrorists. Their concerns are justified. In 2004, for example, the FBI admitted to monitoring mosques in nine cities and surveilling a number of Muslims in the U.S.66 The consequences are clear: camera surveillance not only chills protected speech, but also stigmatizes those who are wrongfully associated with criminality.67

61 Jennifer Granholm, Video Surveillance on Public Streets: The Constitutionality of Invisible Citizen Searches, 64 U. Det. L. Rev. 687, 695 (1987).

62 Operational Procedure 60-555, supra, note 7.

63 The drive occurred on June 28, 2011.

64 Interview with Ray Hall, Captain, Lansing Police Department, Lansing, Mich. (Sept. 12, 2011).

65 Linda E. Fisher, Guilt by Expressive Association: Political Profiling, Surveillance and the Privacy of Groups, 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 621 (2004) (discussing, generally, how individuals participating in lawful political and religious activities have become targets of surveillance).

66 Id. at 625.

67 Id. at 647.

10

Camera surveillance is dangerous when applied to ordinary citizens. Knowledge that the government is forming opinions by observing our associational activities can significantly alter the way we live our lives and interact with people. Lansing citizens often meet in homes for Bible study, neighborhood association meetings, and to discuss political issues and candidates. Government surveillance of these activities in Lansing neighborhoods could stifle people’s participation in local religious and political gatherings, deeply injuring our democratic values and freedoms.

The Potential for Police Abuse

Camera surveillance provokes uneasy questions about who is looking at whom, and for what purpose. Because those who monitor the cameras remain anonymous, camera surveillance creates circumstances for police officers to use surveillance for purposes unrelated to its stated goal. Said in another way, when no one is watching the watchmen, ample opportunities exist to abuse the system.

For example, in a major study examining camera operators, experts found that instead of conducting protective surveillance, male operators frequently used the cameras to voyeuristically spy on women.68 The researchers warned that “the thighs and cleavages of scantily clad women [were] an easy target for those male operators so motivated.”69 With no real oversight or consequences for their behavior, police “peeping toms” could easily violate the privacy and sexual integrity of an unknowing individual.

The information obtained about Lansing residents through camera surveillance can also be misused for other personal reasons. For example, in Washington, D.C., a police officer retrieved private information off an internal database in an attempt to blackmail a married attendee of a gay club.70 The officer threatened to reveal photographs of the man at the bar to the man’s wife and employer unless he paid $10,000.71 The case proved that even police, who are entrusted to protect us, may misuse personal information for nefarious purposes.

Michigan officers have also abused their access to private information. In a comprehensive report published by the Detroit Free Press, investigators found that 90 Michigan police officers had used an internal database to help themselves or their friends stalk women, threaten motorists, and track estranged spouses.72 In one instance, an officer provided a motorist’s private information to a friend who then used it to anonymously harass the driver.73 In another case, a former Troy Police Chief admitted that officers run the plates of attractive women through the database, a practice commonly known as “running a plate for a date.”74 Again, these examples reflect the potential for abuse with any system that provides access to private information. By extension, the risks to civil liberties associated with a city-wide surveillance system are considerable.

The LPD’s Operational Procedure “prohibits monitoring based solely on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, or for purposes of voyeurism” and mandates that observation be conducted for “for safety and security purposes.”75 Accordingly, operators are not permitted to monitor individuals unless they appear “suspicious.”76 However, what specifically constitutes “suspicious” behavior is not defined, nor is there any enforcement mechanism to make sure improper searches are not performed. Unfortunately, experience suggests that officers who have abused such systems have been difficult to catch, and those who have been caught have only received mild reprimands.77

68 Clive Norris & Gary Armstrong, CCTV and the Social Structuring of Surveillance, 10 Crime Prevention Studies 157, 174 (1999). Surveillance on women for voyeuristic reasons outnumbered protective surveillance by five to one.

69 Id.

70 Avis Thomas-Lester & Toni Locy, Chief’s Friend Accused of Extortion, Wash. Post, Nov. 26, 1997, at A01.

71 Id.

72 M.L. Elrick, Cops Tap Database to Harass, Intimidate, Detroit Free Press, July 31, 2001, page 1A.

73 Id.

74 Id.

75 Operational Procedure 600-55, supra, note 7, at 2.

76 Hall (Oct. 20, 2009), supra, note 4.

77 Elrick, supra, note 72. Police say that officers likely abuse the internal database quite often. When officers are caught, most are dealt with internally.

11

The LPD’s Operational Procedure also requires that a log be maintained of all people who access the surveillance cameras. However, there are no known records of who has accessed the cameras or images, or of any abuses of the system.78 An administrator for the City of Lansing explained that the LPD ceased maintaining an access log or monitoring access for potential abuse when Dispatch got access to the cameras, because compliance with the operating procedure was too cumbersome. But, with increased access, maintaining the log is even more important, as the potential for abuse is greater.

Disparate Impact on People of Color

The placement of Lansing’s surveillance cameras imposes a disproportionate impact on Lansing’s minority population. In a study conducted by an Oakland University researcher, the racial demographics of Lansing’s surveilled and non-surveilled neighborhoods were compared.79 The researcher found that neighborhoods under observation had approximately 15 percent more black residents than non-surveilled neighborhoods.80 Comparing the representation of black residents to white residents, the study concluded that African Americans were twice as likely to be under camera surveillance as white residents.81 These numbers demonstrate that African Americans in Lansing are subject to disproportionate scrutiny of their personal houseguests and yard activities, and undue exposure to round-the-clock surveillance.82

Although the LPD has expressed a desire to create stronger ties with the Lansing community, the disproportionate monitoring of people of color actually exacerbates the conditions that facilitate anger and resentment of law enforcement. In a society where many African Americans already feel profiled, installing surveillance cameras in their communities to constantly monitor their behavior only serves to heighten their sense of powerlessness and to foster mistrust of government officials. As a result, racial disparities in government camera surveillance harms the already fragile relationships necessary for effective police protection. African American residents of Lansing have voiced their dissatisfaction with camera surveillance. One resident in an affected neighborhood expressed fear that when his grandson practices basketball on his driveway, the stranger on the other side of the camera would be silently judging him according to his own prejudices and stereotypes.83 These concerns reflect the unfortunate but real pressures of racism and discrimination that continue to affect people of color today. Because these perspectives have not been taken into consideration, the installation of cameras has elicited negative responses from some African American residents, many of whom feel they are being viewed with suspicion as potential criminals. Their sentiments have been reflected in studies verifying that racial minorities are frequently targeted by camera operators in other communities “with a relish that impl[ies] a deep prejudice.”84

In a similar situation, the erosion of community relationships with the police was observed in Birmingham, United Kingdom, where a disparately high concentration of the surveillance cameras was placed in Muslim areas of the city. Afterwards, many Muslim residents were angry, distrustful and a lot less likely to talk to the police.85 In September, 2010, the 200 neighborhood surveillance cameras were taken down, and the police apologized to the community. 86

78 Freedom of Information Act Response from Assistant City Attorney Kulhaney, City of Lansing, (May 26, 2011) (enclosing documents related to Lansing crime statistics and miscellaneous costs for cameras).

79 See Ray Liedka, Analysis of Lansing Population Under Camera Surveillance: Actual v. Expected (Feb. 2, 2010), www.aclumich.org/cams

80 Id.

81 Id.

82 Studies in the UK have also concluded that black persons were 11/2 to 21/2 times more likely to be targeted for surveillance when compared to the general population. See, for example, Norris & Armstrong, supra, note 69, at 162.

83 Interview with Lansing Resident, in Lansing, Mich. (Feb. 27, 2009).

84 Norris & Armstrong, supra, note 69, at 171. Racist language and stereotypical negative attitudes were prevalent among CCTV operators studied in the United Kingdom. These attitudes translated into an almost automatic targeting of black individuals, including black youth, without any suspicion of wrongdoing.

85 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10888985.

86 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11443781.

12

RECOMMENDATIONS

Civil and human rights activists have been concerned with the implications of camera surveillance for many years. However, the use of video surveillance in residential areas makes their privacy concerns even greater. The placement of cameras near homes, paired with the technological advancements that have been made in video surveillance, make it easy for the government to monitor and record much more than is possible with the naked eye.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, along with its Lansing Branch, have therefore formulated recommendations for Lansing officials charged with authorizing and implementing camera surveillance. These guidelines balance law enforcement’s important public safety goals against this country’s constitutional values and longstanding commitment to individual privacy.

Recommendation 1: Immediate Removal of All Residential Lansing Surveillance Cameras

The LPD aims “to minimize crime, maximize public safety, maintain order, and enforce the law.”87 However worthy these goals, a simple cost-benefit analysis of Lansing’s residential video surveillance system suggests that the cameras should be dismantled. Because camera surveillance is ineffective at reducing crime yet seriously threatens civil liberties, the ACLU of Michigan recommends that the expansion of video surveillance be halted and existing residential cameras be removed.

Recommendation 2: Alternative Crime-Fighting Tools

The City of Lansing can find alternative crime-fighting methods less costly and more effective than video surveillance systems. In conjunction with their constituency, researchers, criminologists, privacy advocates, and other law enforcement agencies, the LPD should evaluate and expand its use of other measures that help keep people safe without sacrificing their privacy.

Recent studies have identified several viable alternatives to the presence of surveillance cameras in residential neighborhoods. Current research shows that increasing “on the beat” police officers decreases crime.88 In fact, the LPD has assigned community patrolling officers to four of the areas under surveillance. In keeping with the LPD’s philosophy of community-oriented policing, it may be more useful to assign more police officers to street patrol in high crime areas and to build on existing community watch programs, instead of maintaining cameras. In addition, environmental design methods – like increased street lighting – have a demonstrative positive effect in reducing crime without violating citizens’ rights.89 While the preceding suggestions are not exhaustive, they demonstrate that the LPD may have its choice of alternative practices that will not harm the privacy rights of its residents.

Recommendation 3: High Quality Statistical Evaluations

A key feature of all good policy-making is that it is based on robust evidence. Therefore, any use of residential camera surveillance should occur only if officials can provide credible causal evidence that it reduces crime. Researchers must perform clear statistical analyses. Such studies must take into account extrinsic factors that may skew results such as crime displacement and population shifts. All studies should be made available to the public and subject to peer review. Furthermore, if a camera system is used, it must be regularly evaluated for effectiveness and for impact on civil liberties, and removed after a limited period of time.

87 Lansing Police Department, Annual Report 4 (2008) (reciting the Lansing Police Department’s mission statement).

88 See Jonathan Klick & Alexander T. Tabarrok, Using Terror Alert Levels to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime, 48 J. L. Econ. 267 (2005) (showing a significant drop in crime rates with increased police presence); Steven D. Levitt, Using Electoral Cycles in Police Hiring to Estimate the Effect of Police on Crime, 87 Am. Econ. Rev. 270 (1997). These studies evaluate the effect of police on crime rates using catalysts for increased police presence that are independent of crime rates. In this way, the studies control for difficulties in determining a causal link between instances of crime and placing more police “on the beat.”

89 See Ronald Clarke, Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2008), available at

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e1208-StreetLighting.pdf.

13

Recommendation 4: Self-audit to Monitor and Enforce Policy and Procedural Safeguards

If surveillance cameras are used, an annual review or self-audit by the LPD should be conducted to ensure that all of the operational procedures and policies applicable to the surveillance cameras designed to safeguard the public are being followed and a copy of the report should be made available to the community. The difficulties in spotting the signs posted in some surveillance areas observed by the ACLU and brought to the attention of Capt. Hall is prompting the LPD to post additional signs in the surveillance areas. Similarly, the ACLU learned that an access log is not being maintained, as required by the Operational Procedures, only after it submitted a FOIA request, and was informed that LPD has no such records.90 In order to monitor any abuses of the camera system, the LPD should have its own mechanism to routinely detect and correct any noncompliance with procedures designed to safeguard the rights of residents.

Recommendation 5: Neighborhood Involvement and Approval

As part of its mission, the LPD pledges “to maintain the trust and confidence of its citizens by partnering with them to solve community problems . . . and enhance Lansing’s quality of life.”91 Consistent with this goal, the ACLU recommends that the city refrain from installing surveillance cameras in any neighborhood without consulting and obtaining the approval of the vast majority of those affected by its presence – the residents. Before seeking approval, neighborhood residents should be made fully aware of the technological capacity of the cameras and the threat surveillance poses to individual privacy. Well publicized hearings should be held in neighborhoods where cameras are contemplated so residents can voice their concerns. Any use of surveillance cameras in neighborhoods should only be for a limited time period and should not be continued past that time without again obtaining the approval of the vast majority of neighborhood residents. Further, there should be a mechanism for residents to petition for the removal of the cameras in their neighborhood before the time period has expired if, for example, the use of surveillance cameras has been abused. Community input, public vote, and collaborative decision-making create effective public policy tools. If residents oppose surveillance cameras in their neighborhood, they should not be installed.

GETTING INVOLVED

There are many ways that Lansing residents can speak out against residential surveillance cameras. Below are just a few ways that you can get involved:

1. Write or call your mayor and city council representatives to let them know that you oppose residential surveillance. Visit http://www.lansingmi.gov/council/ to find a list of council members and their contact information.

2. Get involved with the Coalition Against Monitoring and Surveillance (CAMS), an organization dedicated to ending residential camera surveillance in Lansing. For more information about CAMS or what you can do to protect privacy in Lansing, go to www.aclumich.org/cams

3. Talk to your friends, family, and neighbors about the installation of cameras and why privacy matters

to you.

4. Attend your neighborhood association meetings and make sure your leaders know about and address the issue of residential cameras. Invite an ACLU speaker to your meeting to discuss the issue.

5. Sign up for the ACLU of Michigan Action Alert network to receive messages about talks and campaigns to address surveillance and other civil liberties issues in the Lansing area. Go to www.aclumich.org.

90 Letter from Assistant City Attorney, supra, note 55.

91 Lansing Police Department. Annual Report 4, supra, note 88.

14

Eyes In the Sky: Lansing Residential Surveillance

and Its Intrusion on Privacy

Principal Authors: Avani P. Bhatt, ACLU Legal Fellow, 2010-2011

and

Joyce S. Kornbluh, ACLU Cooperating Attorney

Copyright 2012 American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is the nation’s premier guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN

2966 Woodward Ave.

Detroit, MI 48201 313.578.6800

www.aclumich.org

Acknowledgements:

A number of people were involved in the preparation of this report. Special thanks are extended to Captain Ray Hall, the Lansing Police Department, and Jeff Kludy, Chief Technology Administrator for the City of Lansing, for their cooperation in providing us information about the residential surveillance cameras and candidly answering our questions. While we do not necessarily share the same viewpoint about residential surveillance, Captain Hall and Mr. Kludy have been extremely professional, open, and honest in their dealing with us. Thank you as well to Professor Raymond Liedka for his valuable research on the impact of surveillance cameras on people of color, and to William Leaf for the photographs. Many thanks to ACLU staff members who reviewed and provided helpful feedback and comments about this report. They include Shelli Weisberg, Dan Korobkin, and Jessie Rossman. We greatly appreciate the work of Randy Watkins of the Lansing Area ACLU and Walter Brown, President of the Knollwood/Willow Neighborhood Association, the Coalition Against Monitoring and Surveillance (CAMS), for leading the effort to address the problems raised in this report. Finally, a special thanks to ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg for his guidance and always thoughtful suggestions while writing this report.

The Christian Era Skolfied

The Post Road

Though there were three other cities nearby to whom Paul had written epistles (Thessalonica, Philippi and Colosse), they were not included because they were not on a Post Road beginning in Ephesus.

As a result, they could not give us a timed picture of conditions in
the Church during the Christian era.
The Post Road began in Ephesus and continued on to the
various cities in the order given in Revelation 2-3.
From “Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to
Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
And that exactly matches the spiritual condition of
Church during the Christian era.
  32-95AD Ephesus..........“Lost your first love...”

Rev 2:4, Heresy enters church: Marcionites, Gnostics,
Nicolaitans, Balaamites, etc.

95-321AD Smyrna...........“Persecuted 10 days...” Rev 2:10
Ten major persecutions under ten Roman Emperors:
(1) Domitian (2) Trajan (3) Hadrian (4) Antonius
Pius (5) Marcus Arelius (6) Septimus Severus (7)
Maximin (8) Decius (9) Valerian (10)Diocletian

321-450AD Pergamum......“Where Satan's throne is...” Rev 2:13
Constantine makes Christianity state religion. Church hierarchy begins.

450-950AD Thyatira.........“That Woman Jezebel...” Rev 2:20
Beginning of Mary worship. Idols brought into the churches.
Bishops rise to power.

950-1450AD Sardis............“But you are dead...” Rev 3:1
Dead Catholic formalism. Bible taken from the people.
Persecution of the brethren intensifies.

1450-1948AD Philadelphia...“You have kept My Word...” Rev 3:8
The Reformation, Protestant churches rise, the Puritan movement,
foreign missions founded.

1948AD-???? Laodicea........ “You are neither hot nor cold...” Rev 3:15
Lukewarm church of today. Great “so-called works,”
but spiritually cool.

Trash-Cams and Spying Smart Phone Cameras

The truth is, remote tracking and survelliance of targets has been codified into every cell phone since the mid 90s. This article is a well-poisoner. A misdirect. Like it's something they are going to do. It has been well established that this spying technology on ANY cell phone has been around a long time.

Be advised.

---------------

According to the article:




“[R]esearchers from the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center have developed malicious software that can remotely seize control of the camera on an infected smartphone and employ it to spy on the phone’s user,” going on to read, “The malware, dubbed “PlaceRaider,” “allows remote hackers to reconstruct rich, three-dimensional models of the smartphone owner’s personal indoor spaces through completely opportunistic use of the camera,” the researchers said in a study published last week.”



This kind of technology is rather unnerving, especially considering how this technology, coupled with its ability to use your smart phone camera to look into your house, has the potential to “steal virtual objects [visible to the camera] … such as as financial documents [or] information on computer monitors,” the researchers reported.”

Juicing and Raw Foods: Whole Foods shoppers have been betrayed

Juicing and Raw Foods: Whole Foods shoppers have been betrayed: Imagine the shock of brutal reality when Whole Foods shoppers learn the truth. They will be appalled. They will feel lied to... betrayed. Wa...

VIOXX

"A Pill for Every Ill" sums up the extreme reliance on drugs that has become an integral part of today’s lifestyle. One only has to turn on the TV or the radio to hear an endless recitation of the latest drugs being promoted to overcome every kind of human ill. Also invariably there is a rapidly recited and de-emphasized list of the many harmful side effects of each one. This denial of risks is not always successful: witness the scandal that broke in late 2005 around the drug giant Merck & Co., in connection with their arthritis drug VIOXX. At first Merck publicly admitted that worldwide some 16,000 people had died in the two or three preceding years of the drug’s side effects, and withdrew VIOXX from the market. Remarkably enough, Merck & Co. had for some years published the life-threatening side effects and warnings concerning this drug in the Physicians’ Desk Reference book (PDR). As the enquiries widened, Merck eventually had to admit that some 55,000 people had died of the side effects of a drug they had taken to ease the pain of arthritis. But the truly scandalous fact is that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) allowed the killer drug back on the market, claiming that its benefits exceeded its risks.

Toxicity

To start with the absolute necessity of life, namely the air we breathe, it is contaminated with the exhaust fumes of road traffic, the invisibly tiny particles that fly off tires and nestle in our lungs, the residues of aircraft fuel descending from the sky, plus the poisonous fumes of countless industrial procedures belching out of factory chimneys or from the neighborhood dry-cleaning establishment. Water, another basic essential of life, is just as bad, contaminated with chlorine and fluoride and with the residues of a wide variety of drugs, which resist all existing purification techniques (except distillation). Industrial and agricultural run-off contaminates rivers and lakes.


The latest addition to environmental pollution is electrosmog, the invisible but constantly thickening electromagnetic fields surrounding us everywhere. Indoors they are produced by TV sets, refrigerators, computers, microwave ovens and cellular phones. By interfering with the natural electromagnetic fields of the human body, they have a harmful impact on health. Outdoors radio masts serving cellular phones are causing serious concern: clusters of diseases, mainly cancer, have been found in the vicinity of newly erected masts. (see Chapter 5, pg.28, pp.3)

Over to food. Here toxicity starts in the soil and in the plants that grow in it. Highly poisonous pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and other chemicals used in commercial agriculture, often till the day of harvesting, leave residues on the plants that become our food. Many of these poisons are systemic, meaning that they permeate the produce and cannot be removed by washing. Unless we eat only organically grown foods, our daily intake is richly laced with a cocktail of agrochemicals, whose cumulative effect has never been tested. And as if all this were not bad enough, in the course of food processing vast numbers of chemical additives are introduced, many of which are unsafe—and worse.

Their purpose is to extend shelf life, almost indefinitely; to make the product look more attractive, and to substitute artificial flavors for the missing natural ones. Food cosmetics, as they are ironically called, solely serve the profit-centered interests of the manufacturers and have nothing to do with healthy nutrition. On the contrary. But the dangers of food additives should not blind us to the fact that the first major culprit of the average modern diet is salt (sodium), the very substance that is hardest to avoid. Despite official warnings against its overuse, salt consumption in the Western world is alarmingly high, causing the body to retain water in the cells, leading to edema. Salt also puts an unreasonable burden on the kidneys, raises blood pressure, deadens the taste buds so that more and more is needed to produce an effect, and interferes with the digestive process. Salt, as we shall see later, also plays a dangerous role in the cellular process leading to cancer.

Since meat is a valued staple item of the modern diet, it may sound surprising that excess animal proteins behave as toxins in the body. But the fact is that the human organism with its long intestinal tract is not designed to cope with a diet high in animal proteins. (By contrast the intestinal tract of carnivores, such as lions and other big cats, is short, hence the waste products of the digested meat are quickly eliminated.) The ideal diet for humans should be predominantly plant-based, with a minimum of animal protein. Today the opposite applies.

Yet as we go through life, we become less able to digest animal proteins, so that its poorly digested, incompletely broken down parts linger on in the body as toxins. The animal fats contained in almost all meat, poultry and dairy produce are also inadequately digested as the body ages and its enzymes no longer function efficiently. Last but not least, food animals are raised on unhealthy food, treated with hormones, antibiotics and synthetic growth promoters. Whatever they are forced to consume remains in the meat, eggs and milk products that finally land on our tables, adding to the already heavy toxic load we are unwittingly carrying.

The body attempts to get rid of all these harmful substances to protect itself. Unfortunately in addition to the massive burden of toxins it needs to deal with, it is also up against the problem of deficiency.

Electro-Magnetic Fields

FieldsEvery living thing is surrounded by its own electromagnetic field, an invisible but measurable layer of radiating energy. For millions of years these fields existed undisturbed, until the late 19th century, when the first incandescent filament light bulb was invented in Britain, and somewhat later in America. With that invention electricity became a vital part of everyday life and its use has grown exponentially, until today all populations on Earth are exposed to varying degrees of electromagnetic fields. Lamps, TV sets, radios, refrigerators, regular and microwave ovens, computers, and latterly cellular phones all emit invisible electromagnetic frequencies. If we add natural geopathic radiation to our household implements, it is no exaggeration to say that we exist in an electronic soup, or to see that this is bound to have a harmful impact on human health and well-being.


As the use of cellular phones increases worldwide, more and more radio masts are erected to service them. So far, official bodies have tended to claim that these masts presented no health risks to people living near them, but concerned individuals tell a different story, reporting on clusters of diseases, mainly cancer, erupting in the vicinity of a recently erected mast. Sleep disturbances, headaches, skin rashes, heart palpitations and vertigo have also set in within the same period. Some scientists agree with the concerns of the lay public, For example Dr. Robert O.Becker, twice nominated for the Nobel Price, called the proliferation of electro-magnetic fields “the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment.” And both the World Health Organization and the European Parliament have held discussions on the environmental impact of electro-magnetic fields.

Applying the precautionary principle—“If in doubt, don’t ”—everything possible must be done to limit the risks of the all-pervasive electronic smog. Cellular phone use must be cut to a minimum, switched off immediately after use, and not carried on the body even when switched off. If possible, hands-free devices should be used, to keep phones away fromhead and body.

Phones apart, it is wise not to keep any electronic devices near beds, where the sleepers would be exposed to radiation throughout the night. All electronic equipment should be switched off when not in use, not left on stand-by. A common houseplant, chlorophytum (popular name spider plant) is said to absorb harmful radiation, and should be kept in the home in large numbers.

Stress—the Enemy Within

Last but not least, beside the harmful influences that attack the body’s defenses from the outside, there is another self-made internal one, namely stress, that must be considered. Stress is very much taken for granted as part of today’s rushed and restless lifestyle, yet it wasn’t even identified, let alone explored until the first half of the twentieth century. It was then that the eminent Hungarian-born endocrinologist Hans Selye, M.D., D.Sc., FRS (1907-1982), first began to wonder why so many people were suffering from what he called a state of sub-health, being neither ill nor well and lacking in vitality. He eventually identified the cause as stress, which he defined in the following words: “Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether it is caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. How you take it determines whether you can adapt successfully to change.”

In other words, stress in itself isn’t bad. On the contrary. To quote Selye again, “It is generally believed that biological organisms require a certain amount of stress in order to maintain their well-being. However,.”. excess stress that the system cannot handle, produces pathological changes.” 8 The problem is that modern human beings respond to real or imaginary danger with the same instantaneous biological changes as our most remote ancestors did when confronted with an attacking mammoth or the flint axe of an enemy: the “fight or flight” response clicks in, giving the organism a burst of energy to fight the attacker—or flee with above-average speed. The alarm reaction causes the pituitary-adenocortical system to respond by producing the hormones essential to either fighting or fleeing. The heart rate increases, the blood sugar level rises, the pupils dilate to see better and the digestion slows down to divert energy to the limbs. Adrenaline and cortisol rush into the system. All these changes disappear when the situation is resolved, either by fighting the enemy or fleeing to safety.

These days the threats are mainly non-violent, and the challenges tend to cause frustration, simmering rage or repressed tension, which find no outlet—after all, we can’t wrestle with a hyper-critical boss, or escape from a maddening traffic jam—so that the organism stays in an unnaturally aroused state. Just like our cave-dwelling ancestors, modern people also go through the three phases of alarm, resistance, and finally exhaustion. And in due course the stress-induced hormonal changes can lead to a wide range of diseases, including hypertension, coronary thrombosis, brain hemorrhage, gastric or duodenal ulcers, arteriosclerosis, arthritis, disease and allergic reactions. Above all, the immune system is weakened—and by now we know how dangerous that is.

Hardly anyone gets through life without experiencing periods of great stress. Business failure, financial problems, serious debt, divorce, sickness in the family, loss of a job—the list is long. People often respond by putting in extra hours of work, living on junk food and unhealthy snacks, taking sleeping drugs to fight insomnia and “wake-up drugs” to cope with the new day, drinking more coffee, more alcohol, smoking more, all of which speeds up the descent into ill health. But it is their reaction to stress, not the stress in itself that causes the trouble. Stress and its consequences may act as the proverbial last straw that breaks the camel’s back, especially if we are dealing with one of Selye’s “sub-healthy” individuals, whose liver is already in a sorry state, with the rest of the organism toxic and malnourished.

All this means that stress must be included among the factors that undermine the body’s defenses, and we need to deal with it sensibly. Relaxation techniques, yoga, breathing exercises, counseling help to re-program one’s spontaneous, deeply damaging reactions to life’s inevitable turmoils. (see Chapter 25, Overcoming Stress and Tension) Combined with optimum nutrition this may result in the ideal set out by Dr Selye, when he recommended, “stress without distress.”

References:

1. Gerson, M. “A Cancer Therapy—Results of 50 Cases

6th edition, Bonita, CA. The Gerson Institute, Bonita, California, 1999.

2. Hardell, L. & Eriksson, M. CANCER Vol.85, No.6. 1999

3. Lean, G. The Independent on Sunday, London, May 22 2005

4. .Breggin, P. Talking Back to Ritalin, Common Courage Press, 1998

5. Erb, J. & T.M., The Slow Poisoning of America, Paladins Press, 2003

6. Gesch, B. Press Conference, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, June 25, 2002; Schoenthaler, S. Anti-Ageing Medical Publications, Vol.III. Health Quest Publications, CA 1999

7. Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary, 17th edition, F.A.Davis Company, Philadelphia, 1989

8. Selye, H. The Stress of Life, 1956

Government Assistance Doesn’t Cut It Anymore: Phoenix Mayor Loses 4 Pounds In One Week On “Food Stamp Budget”

Mac Slavo


September 28th, 2012   If you’re dependent on the government to support your weekly sustenance, the money you receive is no longer sufficient to maintain a healthy and nutritious diet – so says Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton:



Last week, Stanton, a Democrat, took part in a community challenge to live on a food stamp budget – just $4.16 to buy food per day, or about $29 per week for one person.



Stanton said he was barely able to meet nutritional needs and lost four pounds, according to Fox 10 News Phoenix. He skipped meals and relied on ramen noodles, pasta and coffee, according to KTAR.



“I’m facing a long, hungry day and an even longer night getting dinner on the table, which requires making EVERYTHING from scratch on this budget,” Stanton wrote on Facebook. “It’s only for a week, so I’ve got a decent attitude. If I were doing this with no end in sight, I probably wouldn’t be so pleasant.”



Stanton concluded on Facebook at the end of the challenge: “The best ‘program’ for any struggling family is a job that pays a living wage.”



Source: Huff Post



According to Stanton, he lost four pounds in a single week on his $29 per week food budget:





A record number of Americans – 46.7 million – used food stamps in the month of June, and tens of millions more are directly in the sights of an economy spiraling uncontrollably into collapse.



Food prices have risen 175% since they year 2000 and analysts estimate that this past summer’s drought will force them even higher – as high as 30% by the middle of next year. On top of that we’ve got the Federal Reserve committing some $80 billion a month in continued monetary easing (printing). There is only one direction for food prices to go, and that’s up.



There is no way out, despite what politicians and experts tell us or what many Americans want to believe. This ends with millions of Americans starving in the streets. There can be no other result. Either the nutritional assistance programs come to a screeching halt because there is no credit funding left for the county as a whole, or prices rise exponentially to the point that $29 will buy maybe a gallon of milk or less.



This is our future. You can bet on it.



And the way to ‘bet’ on it is to stock up on essential commodities like rice, beans, wheat, dry milk, and corn now , before things get so bad that they are no longer manageable.

Going to church

God's cathedral...in every land, no matter the name.

Connect, love, feel, smile, release.

Free your stoke, paddle out.

The dolphins come.

Joy and balance is yours.

Prayer to the Great Father.

Gratitude.

Irrational and stunted behavior

It seems I have to post this every so often, so here goes.

It may occur to some of you who write me that I have a life, children to raise, and things to do. So, sending me hate-filled emails because you didn't get an answer from me the same day you sent it, is more than stunted, it's the sign of a soured mind and heart that is looking for any reason to ATTACK in the first place.
Oh, and since when did I ever become some kind of answer machine for the world?
But, as most of these attacks come from the same group of people they have always come from, I literally sit back and wait...how many emails before they show their real side to me? One, two? Ten?
And then whammo! Here it comes, the attack. I didn't answer fast enough, because I was out a few days or was so over booked with stuff, I pushed off dealing with emails until I felt like it. They day has yet to come when I have ever done this to someone, especially a total stranger.
So, if hate lingers in your heart and the network has sent you, all you will get is prayer for your recovery back into the human race. Maybe one day you will.
Anything's possible.

Into The Fire - Full Film

Lethal Injection: The Story Of Vaccination

Shots In The Dark Silence on Vaccine

Monsanto in English Gematria Equals: 666

Gematria or gimatria (Hebrew: גימטריה‎ gēmaṭriyā) is a system of assigning numerical value to a word or phrase, in the belief that words or phrases with identical numerical values bear some relation to each other, or bear some relation to the number itself

Monsanto in English Gematria Equals: 666 ( m78 o90 n84 s114 a6 n84 t120 o90 )

GMO, Global Alert

Dare to Think -- A Message About Fluoride, written by Darlene Sherrell

[Home] [EvoluLog] [Search] [GuestBook]







Written by Darlene Sherrell, 426 Heritage Oaks Drive, Eugene, Oregon 97405

E-Mail: sherrell@sipnsurf.com; Phone/Fax 541-345-1786



Just in time for Children's Dental Health Month, (February 1997) the Reader's Digest published HOW HONEST ARE DENTISTS?, by William Ecenbarger, winner of the George Polk Award for Investigative Journalism. The article revealed that in 28 states dentists examined the same set of x-rays and the same set of pearly whites, and then recommended widely differing treatments, with price tags to match: $500.00 to $29,850.00. They didn't seem to know what to do or how much to charge for doing it. "I got 50 opinions," Ecenbarger writes, "and I am not comforted."



This article, however, barely scratches the surface with regard to dishonesty. For decades, the American Dental Association has worked hand in glove with industry to cover up the toxic properties of fluoride, causing untold pain and suffering among an unsuspecting population urged to trust their dentists, trust their government, trust their political leaders, no matter what.



In the early 1930s, when American Dentistry was becoming aware of the damage fluoride can cause during the development of our children's teeth, there was a great call to remove the fluoride naturally present in water supplies. Communities in sixteen states had observed disfiguring stains and pits in their children's teeth. In 1940 the Journal of Dental Research contained a report describing a survey of the inhabitants of St. David, Arizona, where water supplies contained 1.6 to 4 parts per million of fluoride There was no apparent dental benefit from fluoride. In fact, more than half the people in all age groups over the age of twenty-three had artificial dentures. With this new awareness came fear.



Industries necessary for the production of electricity, aluminum, refrigerants, pesticides, etc., were facing costly litigation due to an emerging environmental consciousness. The Country was facing a great dilemma: impossible choices involving survival. Our military forces could not function without the tools of war -- tools that could simply not be made if we were going to restrict the release of fluoride into our environment. Emissions from smokestacks, and in wastewater could not be limited beyond a certain degree, and laborers could not be given the benefit of an absolutely safe workplace.



Today, there are near-daily news reports covering past mistakes -- not because of conspiracies, but good intentions -- the pavement, they say, on the road to Hell. Today, as then, we are being led by persons with a hidden agenda. The promoters of water fluoridation who speak through the mouth of the American Dental Association are not isolated from those whose concerns are manufacturing costs. Instead, they are one.



Years ago, when I found dozens of discrepancies between the descriptions (abstracts) of scientific journal articles and the journal articles themselves; I also found that the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association actually prefer to rely on the abstracts -- even though the discrepancies involve the movement of decimal points, and simple errors in arithmetic. Like Ecenbarger, I was not comforted . . . it didn't make sense.



Particularly disturbing were the discrepancies involving the quantity of fluoride capable of destroying a child's smile or causing osteoporosis, arthritis, lower back pain, heartburn, stomach cramps, diarrhea. These were not theories, but descriptions of the fate of hundreds of millions of people who developed Dental Fluorosis or Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis. . . not necessarily from fluoridated water, but from fluoride -- regardless of the source.



Although few of us are aware of the truly ubiquitous nature of fluorides, or their role in our lives and our history; we all understand the words overdose and side effect. Sooner or later, we must face the fact that our children are threatened, as we are, by a legacy of errors. The time has come for common sense, and change.



The U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association are currently promoting the idea of universal mandatory water fluoridation. Why? Their own experts point out that cavity rates have decreased worldwide, without regard to the fluoride in a water supply . . . and without any connection between the fluoride in children's teeth and their experience with cavities. There's no benefit in exceeding the recommended dose, they say. On the contrary, the U.S. Public Health Service says fluoride makes dental enamel more porous, and makes bone more brittle.



During the last twenty years Uncle Sam's Experts have had a great deal to say about the nature of fluoride . . . things everyone should know. The problem is that Policy requires that these things never see the light of day. They lie buried under executive summaries and official interpretations handed out in press releases. . . but facts are facts -- no matter whose slick mouthpiece or distinguished scientist tries to tell you otherwise. Most of what you think you know about fluoride just isn't so. Consider the facts . . . check the references, and dare to think.



According to the National Research Council's 1993 review "It has been calculated that the amount of fluoride ingested with toothpaste (or mouth rinse) by children who live in a community with optimally fluoridated water, who have good control of swallowing, and who brush (or rinse) twice a day is approximately equal to the daily intake of fluoride with food, water, and beverages. In the case of younger children or those who, for any other reason, have poor control of swallowing, the daily intake of fluoride from dental products could exceed dietary intake.



"Investigators seeking to examine the possible relation between fluoride intake and health outcomes, such as dental caries, fluorosis, or quality of bone, need to be aware of the complex situation that exists today. It is no longer feasible to estimate with reasonable accuracy the level of fluoride exposure simply on the basis of concentration in drinking water supply."



Although the recommended "upper limit" for children is 0.04 to 0.07 mg/kg/day (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day), and the "optimum" is 0.04 mg/kg/day; the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council (NAS/NRC) reported in 1993: "Recent estimates of daily intake of fluoride from food and drink by North American children up to 2 years of age are 0.01 to 0.16 mg/kg in areas without fluoridation and 0.03 to 0.13 mg/kg in areas with fluoridation."



In 1951, NAS/NRC wrote: "For practical public health purposes, it has been proposed that a safe level has been reached when not more than 10 to 15 per cent of children age 12-14 years, who have used water supplies since birth, and who have been examined under standard conditions, show the mildest detectable type of mottled enamel"



In 1993 NAS/NRC reported that in optimally fluoridated Augusta, Georgia, 80.9% of the children aged 12-14 had mottled enamel due to excess fluoride. Most was mild to very mild, but moderate to severe fluorosis was found in 14% of the children. Some studies, they report, have found that with increasing fluoride, the number of cavities increases as well. They also note, "the most severe forms of dental fluorosis might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment."



In 1977 the National Research Council (NAS/NRC) reported: "The possibility of mutagenesis due to hydrogen fluoride is potentially important in cancer of the stomach. ... the much higher stomach cancer rates in Japan are related to intake patterns that are compatible with a hypothesis that fluoride is the crucial factor involved."



NAS/NRC also noted that "a retention of 2 mg/day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years, based on an accumulation of 10,000 ppm fluoride in bone ash." It is generally agreed that approximately one-half of the total daily intake of fluoride will be retained. . . thus, according to our most prestigious scientists, the ingestion of less than 5 milligrams (mg) of fluoride daily will result, after 40 years, in the condition called Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis.



In 1977, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) explained, "Fluorine and some of its compounds are primary irritants of skin, eyes, mucous membranes, and lungs. Thermal or chemical burns may result from contact ... even when they involve small body areas (less than 3%) can cause systemic effects of fluoride poisoning by absorption of the fluoride through the skin." Brief exposure to inhaled fluorine "has caused sore throat and chest pain, irreversible damage to the lungs, and death. Gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, vomiting, diffuse abdominal cramps and diarrhea can be expected. Large doses produce central nervous system involvement with twitching of muscle groups, ... convulsions, and coma." Fluoride is the active ingredient in the deadly nerve gas, Sarin, and in the fungicide Flusilazole, which caused crop damage and physical ailments in 40 states in the early 90s. Teflon is a fluoride product, as is freon.



In the 1940s, the U.S. Public Health Service was reporting a total daily fluoride intake from typical diets in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams. If the drinking water contained about 1 part per million fluoride, the total daily intake could be expected to reach about 1 to 1-1/2 milligrams.



By the 1970s, the total from dietary sources had increased to as much as 3.44 mg/day, even in non-fluoridated areas; and by 1991, the range in total daily dosage had exceeded 6-1/2 milligrams in areas said to enjoy optimal fluoridation; exceeding 7 mg/day in areas having 2 or more ppm in the water supply.



Once confined almost exclusively to drinking water, fluorides now reach us from a variety of sources, including virtually every food and beverage item; as well as dental products and drugs.



"Whereas dental fluorosis is easily recognized," said the World Health Organization in 1970, "the skeletal involvement is not clinically obvious until the advanced stage of crippling fluorosis ... early cases may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid- or osteo-arthritis."



If we place our trust in the wisdom of the American Dental Association, and their pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts, we learn that for adults, "The possibility of adverse health effects from continuous low level consumption of fluoride over long periods has been studied by the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy found that the daily intake required to produce symptoms of chronic toxicity after years of consumption, is 20 to 80 milligrams or more depending upon body weight. Such heavy doses are associated with water supplies that contain at least ten parts per million of natural fluoride." However, if we take the time to check the World Health Organization reference cited by the ADA, we can immediately see that the dosage figures are just 2 to 8 mg per day, and the water supplies generally contain less than 1 part per million of natural fluoride.



The reference cited by NAS/NRC describes the development of Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis after exposures of eleven years duration, with a daily total expressed as 0.2 to 0.35 mg/kg/day. . . the equivalent, in terms of lifetime exposure to 2 milligrams daily for each 110 pounds of body weight. (lifetime = 55 to 96-1/4 years)



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that 2 is considerably less than 7 -- trusting your dentist in the matter of water fluoridation requires a certain leap of faith.



NIOSH connects the dots between dentistry, industry, and fluoride in listing the various sources and uses of fluoride: "Elemental fluorine is used in the conversion of uranium tetrafluoride to uranium hexafluoride, in the synthesis of organic and inorganic fluorine compounds, and as an oxidizer in rocket fuel.



"Hydrogen fluoride, hydrofluoric acid, and its salts are used in the production of organic and inorganic fluorine compounds such as fluorides and plastics; as a catalyst, in the petroleum industry; as an insecticide; and to arrest the fermentation in brewing. It is utilized in the aluminum industry, in separating uranium isotopes, in cleaning cast iron, copper and brass, in removing effloresence from brick and bone, in removing sand from metallic castings, in frosting and etching glass and enamel, in polishing crystal, in enameling and galvanizing iron, in working silk, in dye, and analytical chemistry, and to increase the porosity of ceramics. Fluorides are used as an electrolyte in aluminum manufacture, in smelting nickel, copper, gold, and silver, as a catalyst for organic reactions, a wood preservative, a fluoridation agent for drinking water, a bleaching agent for cane seats, in pesticides, rodenticides, and as a fermentation inhibitor. They are utilized in the manufacture of steel, iron, glass, ceramics, pottery, enamels, in castings for welding rods, and in cleaning graphite, metals, windows, and glassware. Exposure to fluorides may also occur during preparation of fertilizer from phosphate rock."



When I wrote to the National Academy of Sciences asking for the source of the 20 to 80 mg/day figures in the ADA pamphlet, they said the figures came from Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D., who was formerly Chairman of the NAS/NRC Committee on Toxicology. Dr. Hodge was also a consultant to several industries, involved in the development of the atomic bomb, worked with the Atomic Energy Commission, and participated in panels convened by NAS/NRC in 1951 and 1953. Panel chairman, Kenneth Maxcy, was consultant to the Secretary of War and editor for one of the leading industrial health journals. Panel member Francis Heyroth was Assistant Director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati -- source of the abstracts used by the ADA as well as the Dental Division of the Public Health Service. Kettering's sponsors included aluminum, steel, petroleum, and chemical companies; and Kettering's director, Robert Kehoe, was medical director of the Ethyl Corporation, consultant to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Atomic Energy Commission, the U.S. Air Force, and the Division of Occupational Medicine of the Public Health Service. He was a primary spokesman for the safety of fluoridation, and also testified for the safety of atmospheric lead from auto exhausts.



Hodge prepared a chart of fluoride effects for NAS/NRC in 1953, naming Roholm as his data source; and offered it in testimony before Congress in 1954, as they considered a bill to outlaw water fluoridation.



However, in order to convert the original data into a milligram per day figure, Hodge had to apply the mg/kg figures to a typical range in body weight. He chose 100 to 229 pounds. . . multiplying 100 times 0.2 to get 20 mg/day, and then multiplying 229 times 0.35 to get 80 mg/day -- the dosage in his chart and in the ADA pamphlet. Hodge had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms; and in doing so, he created an artificial margin of safety for water fluoridation. The erroneous figures found their way into hundreds of pamphlets, magazine articles, journals, and textbooks; unchecked for forty years.



The fluoride that is added to community water supplies does not come from a clean laboratory -- it comes with the rest of the scrubber water from the smokestacks of the fertilizer or aluminum industry. . . contaminated with other poisons in small but measurable quantities that industry considers safe. Just think of the savings!



The erroneous 20-80 mg figures created by the alliance of dentistry, industry, and national security made this possible. However, the error was corrected by the National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology in the 1993 review for EPA titled Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. (page 59)



Although the new figures are 10 to 20 mg/day for 10 to 20 years, the total quantity of fluoride ingested is the single most important factor in determining the clinical course of skeletal fluorosis. The severity of symptoms correlates directly with the level and duration of exposure, so that the advanced crippling stages can occur at any age, and has been reported even in pediatric age groups. If the time span is expanded to 40 to 80 years, the intake producing crippling would be 2-1/2 to 5 mg/day.



The symptoms of phase one skeletal fluorosis include sporadic pain and stiffness of joints, with minor osteosclerosis of the pelvis and vertebral column. Phase two is described as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, increased osteosclerosis of cancellous bones, with or without osteoporosis of the long bones; and phase three, limitation of joint movement, calcification of ligaments in the neck and vertebral column, crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, muscle wasting, and neurological defects with compression of the spinal cord. The condition has been observed in many countries throughout the world, but has never been a "reportable disease" in the United States.



This, then, is the risk we face with excess fluoride; and since fluoride is the 13th most abundant element and widely distributed throughout the earth, arthritis from fluoride has been a threat since the earliest times.



There is also the strong possibility of a connection between fluoride intake and kidney stones. In 1987 the fifth edition of Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition was published by Academic Press; edited by Walter Mertz, U.S. Department of Agriculture. It describes symptoms including headache, gastrointestinal problems, and the arthritic complaints mentioned earlier; adding, "Although the exact genesis of renal stones in fluoride toxicity is not known, it is conjectured that insoluble calcium fluoride is deposited in the urinary tract as a nucleus around which other salts are deposited." They also discuss "neighborhood fluorosis," caused by the discharge of fluoride in smokestack emissions, mentioning reports from Ohio, where Chi Vit, an enamel factory in Urbana, managed to avoid the purchase of smokestack scrubbers in the late 1970s. As is the custom, the American Dental Association provided speakers to assure residents that fluoride is harmless. Anyone who disagreed was obviously misinformed, they said. "Trust your dentist."



In 1977, NIOSH explained, "Substances that act chemically to produce injury to organs and tissues of the body usually do so by two basic means: either by depressing or by stimulating the activity of the enzyme systems. A single substance may have more than one pathway and site of action. Multiple pathways of action may be invoked simply by differing doses of the toxic agent; low doses may stimulate enzyme action, high doses depress and inhibit the same or different enzyme systems. This is a characteristic action of most, if not all, toxic substances, including arsenic, benzene, chloroform, cobalt, fluoride, and vanadium.



"Potentiation and synergism, the enhanced toxicity of two or more simultaneously acting substances, can be explained by the action of one preventing the elimination or the metabolism of the other, wholly or in part, thus maintaining elevated systemic levels of the toxic agent, resulting in an observed toxicity greater than the additive toxicity of the combined components.



NIOSH quotes: "A. Marier, in his report, Environmental Fluoride, states that 'In several surveys in which sulphur dioxide had been suspected as the primary air pollutant, fluoride was found to be the factor responsible for environmental blight.' He points out that industries that release fluoride effluents also use fossil fuel as an energy source, thereby emitting significant quantities of sulphur dioxide, and comments on possible synergistic effects. 'Synergistic' means that a substance stimulates and enhances the effect of another substance. Thus, if the two occur together, the combined effect would be greater than the sum of either occurring alone. It is a phenomenon well known in pharmacology, but it does not appear to have been seriously considered in connection with fluoride from the medical point of view. So far, only environmentalists have looked at it.



"A large number of pesticides, chiefly organic phosphates and carbamates, act in the body by blocking this enzyme action, thus allowing excessive amounts of the muscle stimulator to accumulate. The excessive stimulation results in paralysis of the host."



If all this comes as a surprise to you, it is precisely because too many civic leaders, and others, have trusted their dentists in matters that have nothing to do with dentistry. Even more alarming, according to William L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency, "the levels of fluoride found in the bones of rodents who had osteosarcoma (bone cancer) was lower than the level found in human adults exposed to allowable levels of fluoride ... with the exception of fluoride, no other compounds including radioactive compounds, have been able to produce osteosarcomas in rodents."



Children have died in the dentist's chair after treatment with topical fluoride. Adults have died during kidney dialysis when fluoride spills occurred but were not reported. Household products, including toothpaste, have caused serious illness among unsuspecting consumers.



In February of 1972 the ADA reported that in fluoridated cities, the dentists reaped a net profit 17% higher than in nonfluoridated cities. And, today, although the vast majority of children are already showing clear signs of fluoride overdose, dentists follow the party line, arguing for universal mandatory water fluoridation, while ignoring current studies showing no significant difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas worldwide.



In summary: documents sent to me by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine, and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, describe increasing numbers of children whose teeth require complex dental treatment because of excess fluoride; and adults with headaches, back pain, gastro-intestinal problems, arthritic symptoms, and hyperparathyroidism; but no correlation between cavities and the fluoride incorporated into dental enamel, except that with increased dosage, cavities tend to increase as well.



In 1979, Edward Groth III, Senior Staff Officer, Environmental Studies Board, National Research Council, wrote: "...the politically minded zealots have used tactics of intimidation, professional and financial reprisals, derogatory personal attacks, and relentless public relations propaganda to silence scientific critics, to prevent the publication of adverse evidence, and to make politically untenable any interpretation except the official view, that fluoridation is absolutely safe. Can scientific evidence really be suppressed in the free world? Easily."



Obviously, things are not always what they seem. . . bargains not always bargains; and, as Francis Bacon observed, "Nothing doth more hurt in a state than that cunning men pass for wise."



REFERENCES



The Merck Index - An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals (1996) #8520 Sarin

Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride (1993) National Academy of Sciences

Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks (1991) U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, p.17,46

Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition (1987) editor: Walter Mertz, U.S.D.A.

Occupational Diseases - A Guide to Their Recognition (1977) NIOSH, (U.S.Dept. H.E.W.)

Drinking Water and Health (1977) National Academy of Sciences, page 372

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1974) volume 27, pages 590-594

Fluorides - Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants (1971) National Academy of Sciences, pp. 211,218

Fluorides and Human Health (1970) World Health Organization, pages 37,239,240

The Role of Fluoride in Public Health (1963) Kettering Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, Ohio

Fluoride Drinking Waters (1962) F. J. McClure, Editor, U.S.D.H.E.W.

Fluoridation: Facts, Not Myths (1957) American Dental Association

Fluoridation as a Public Health Measure (1954) James H. Shaw, Editor, page 49

American Journal of Public Health (December 1952) volume 42, page 1568

Fluorine Intoxication (1937) K. Roholm, H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., London, page 319

Journal of Dental Research (1933) volume 13, page 139,140

Fluoridation Facts, American Dental Association



Who is Darlene Sherrell?







The Detroit News headline for March 28, 1978 read, "State study to find out if we're fluoride OD's. The article quoted Craig Ruff, an aide to Governor Milliken: "It's a good example of what one citizen on a white horse can do." On the previous day, in the capitol, the State Journal quoted Dr. Maurice Reizen, Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, who said "There is nobody more knowledgable or dedicated on this subject than Darlene Sherrell."



In a recent talk, she described herself as follows:



Ladies and Gentlemen. I have often been asked questions about my credentials . . . my background . . . my qualification to speak or write about fluoride . . . my right, so to speak, to disagree with a dentist or physician.



So, let's get it over with. Beyond what I learned at my mother's knee, plus a few of the tricks of arithmetic from my father, I am largely self-educated. Take a look at my school records and you'll find I missed a great deal of time because of illness.



However, at twenty-seven I was the administrative assistant to the Chief Judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, in charge of preparing the budget, maintaining the library, checking the citations in opinions, recruiting new law clerks, purchasing, public relations, etc. I had a large office to myself, with my name on the door, a state car and expense account, and was expected to keep the other judges on their toes with respect to getting their opinions written on time.



After leaving the court I worked as research associate for the American Business Men's Research Foundation, an educational organization concerned with beverage alcohol. We produced educational materials for schools and helped bring about recognition of fetal alcohol syndrome.



Still later, my concern for the environment and growing knowledge of nutrition and agricultural practices caused me to gather a group of people together for the purpose of establishing a new 501c3 -- a non-profit tax-exempt foundation -- which I called Orenda. We taught classes in natural foods cooking, co-op buying, organic gardening methods, solar and wind power, identifying wild edible plants, herbal remedies, etc. I published a monthly newsletter called The Golden Thread. With the exception of $15.00 to file the original papers, everything was done by the barter method. . . with contributions paying for postage and materials costs.



During my early youth I suffered with arthritis, asthma, gastrointestinal problems, and chemical sensitivities. When I was eighteen an episode with anaphylactic shock almost killed me. Within a year, there were two others, less severe. Until the age of twenty five, my medical problems were a mystery.



I began to study nutrition, and within a year, every sign of arthritis, allergies, chronic fatigue, etc. were gone. . . but still, I had no knowledge of fluoride. Without realizing it, I was avoiding fluoride.



In 1976, while living in Lansing, Michigan, I met our local typical little old lady in tennis shoes, carrying a large paper shopping bag full of tattered newspaper clippings and copies of magazine articles about fluoride. She told me fluoride caused cancer and was put into our water to keep us docile. I was 35, she was in her mid- 60s, and I immediately classified her as a nutcase.



Then, one day, I got curious and looked in my pharmacology book to see what I could find about fluoride. What I found changed my life.



I learned that when the drinking water contained about one part per million of fluoride, 10 to 15 percent of the children would show a faint change in the appearance of their teeth called dental fluorosis; but with 2 or 3 parts per million, nearly all will be affected by this first and only visible sign of fluoride poisoning. I also learned that fluoride is the key ingredient in a widely used cancer drug called 5-FU. The cells die because fluorine enters into one of the molecules in DNA -- the genetic material.



At that time, I lived very near to Michigan State University, was not employed, and was able to spend as much time as I needed at the science library. Not having gone to college, I was unaware of the indexing which makes a search of the literature much easier. I began my study with the year 1930, and the dental journals. This was before computers took over. I pulled each book off the shelf and looked at the index in the back, searching for anything mentioning fluoride. With each article I found references to other articles, and the names of other journals. I carried rolls of nickels and made copies to read at home. There were well over a thousand, spanning the years to 1976, and have been many more since then.



Now, let me tell you. When a person of my age sees The Atomic Energy Commission listed as the sponsor of an article about tooth decay, it brings up a red flag. . . and when an article called Toxicological Evidence for the Safety of Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies is based on studies involving "a man, or six people in South Africa, two people, heights and weights, pediatric exams, rabbits, sheep, cattle, swine, pooled urine samples, and x-rays," it doesn't require much intelligence to suspect that something is wrong. Comments such as "we excluded everyone with symptoms of disease, no matter how mild," will grab the attention. After all, what were they looking for, if not symptoms of disease. These were safety studies!



During the early years, before anyone suggested adding fluoride to the water supply, everyone seemed hell-bent on removing it.



H. Trendley Dean, who later became known as the "father of fluoridation" wrote about an apparent tendency to a higher incidence of gingivitis, and a greater proportion of filled teeth lost due to their brittleness. He wrote "The same amount of fluorine that causes a mild toxic reaction in one individual may cause a severe reaction in another. In other words, we are dealing with a low-grade chronic poisoning of the formative dental organ, . . . some authors have called attention to an apparent delay in the eruption of permanent teeth of children living in endemic areas."



In 1942, an article in The Lancet reported, "The family derived their water from a surface well containing at different times 0.3 to 1.2 ppm fluorine. All the children show severe dental fluorosis with pitting of the teeth." In another article, in the journal Radiology, skeletal fluorosis is described in an area having just 1.2 ppm fluoride in the water supply. . . though most reviews describe this case with the erroneous figure 12 ppm.



The Journal of the American Dental Association reported that at 1.6 to 4 ppm, 50% or more past age 24 have false teeth because of fluoride damage to their own. . . and the journal Oral Surgery reported mottled enamel at 0.5 ppm fluoride. This was at a time when the food supplied only 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams of fluoride daily, and there was no such thing as fluoride toothpaste or mouthwash.



I noticed that after 17 years of fluoridation in Grand Rapids, 19.3% of continuous resident white children, and 40.2% of continuous resident black children had dental fluorosis.



In poverty areas of Puerto Rico, according to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there was relatively little reduction in dental caries, but dental fluorosis was common.



I learned that the original suggestions for benefits from fluoride came from industries being sued for fluoride pollution, and that fluorides have caused more damage to crops and livestock than any other airborne pollutant . . . and learned that the fluorides added to city water supplies are not naturally occurring calcium or magnesium fluoride, but the contents of smokestack scrubber water -- difficult to dispose of because they are so corrosive, and so deadly to all living things.



In the areas of Texas, where dental health was good, the soil and water contained elements which help to de-toxify fluorides. An article in Caries Research reported that 42 elements can be incorporated into developing enamel. The Journal of the American Dental Association reported that "There was no significant difference in the fluoride content of high and low caries individuals," and strontium was more closely associated with dental health. The journal Archives of Oral Biology reported: "Studies which show that there are substantial differences in caries prevalence between localities which have equivalent fluoride concentrations in water supplies substantiate the possible role of other trace elements."



I found several reports of skeletal fluorosis -- from areas having less fluoride in the water supply than EPA considers safe today. . . and in reading the Occupational Health journals, noticed that over the years the pre-employment physicals included measurements of fluoride in urine which were higher and higher as the years passed. The rules for Workmens Compensation were established to eliminate anyone whose exposure to fluoride was below the 20 to 80 milligram per day mark, for 10 to 20 years -- an erroneous figure established by Harold Hodge in 1953.



Each time I wrote to the Michigan Department of Public Health asking about a particular point, the answer contained references to journal articles, but the articles themselves failed to support the answers.



Eventually, I learned that the Public Health Service used abstracts -- not journal articles -- and that was the difference between my opinion and theirs. They were following industries' version, which often included the movement of decimal points or significant differences in describing study methods. . . and with these side-by-side examples, easy enough for a child to see and understand; I was able to convince the Governor of my State, as well as several legislators, to abandon their faith in the advice of the experts at Public Health.



One day, in a fruitless attempt to instruct the chief of the dental division, I showed him several dozen examples of the side-by-side discrepancies -- using only the most obvious. After looking at the fraudulent abstracts, he said, "Look, lady, if the abstracts don't agree with the originals, there must be something wrong with the originals." He went on to explain that he had been involved when fluoridation began in Grand Rapids . . . they had always used the abstracts from the Kettering Laboratory, he said, . . . they must be right!



Now, as I said earlier, I did not go to college, and have no claim to superior intelligence regarding water fluoridation; but, when I see studies involving rats that show increasing cavities with increasing doses of fluoride, or studies involving pooled urine samples which have been controlled for fluoride content ahead of time, or see the major proportion of the data rejected in order to support a pre-determined conclusion, and see that almost all of the books used by the Public Health Service have been funded by industries threatened with litigation due to fluoride pollution; my nose knows. . . something smells of deception.



I have kept up a correspondence with the U.S. Public Health Service for over twenty years, asking in vain for the name of just one safety study in which the researchers actually looked for the symptoms of skeletal fluorosis. According to all that I can find, these occur prior to the advanced crippling stage of the disease when x-rays are useful. I have asked to know why no physicians have ever been allowed to report cases of skeletal fluorosis. I have asked why EPA's maximum contaminant level for fluoride in drinking water does not take into account the fluoride ingested from foods, dental products, or other beverages -- which, today, usually represent three-quarters of the daily dosage in a fluoridated area. I've asked why, with all the mounting evidence of overdosage, they still want to add more fluoride to our diet.



In 1989 I began writing to the National Academy of Sciences, asking for the basis of their 20 to 80 mg/day threshold dosage for skeletal fluorosis. These figures appear in the American Dental Association's pamphlet, Fluoridation Facts, as well as in numerous magazine articles, journals, textbooks, etc. After more than two years, the Academy identified Hodge's interpretation of Roholm as the data source.



Roholm studied the effects of fluoride on cryolite workers who were exposed to 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight per day for several years. Although some developed crippling skeletal fluorosis in a very short time, in general, after 2-1/2 years, the first stage of the disease appeared. After 4-1/2 years, the second stage; and after 11 years, crippling skeletal fluorosis appeared.



Simple arithmetic told me that either Hodge was assuming that these men weighed as much as 1600 pounds, or he was severely challenged mathematically. It was obvious he had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms when he applied Roholm's data to a typical range in body weight (100 to 229 pounds). He simply multiplied 0.2 times 100 to get 20, and multiplied 0.35 times 229 to get 80 milligrams. Then, rather than say 11 years or less, he said 10 to 20 years.



Because this error involved arithmetic, rather than scientific opinion, and because I had the support of Dr. Robert J. Carton, who was, at that time, a senior official at EPA, and Senator Bob Graham of Florida; the National Research Council's Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology was forced to correct the 40-year old error.



Their new figures agree with the data source, and are equivalent to 2-1/2 to 5 milligrams of fluoride daily for 40 to 80 years. With approximately half the daily dosage, or half the time, the second stage of fluorosis can be expected. . . but the symptoms are not considered "adverse health effects," and are not currently included in regulations governing the amount of fluoride allowed in water -- or anything else. These early symptoms are not crippling, but simply arthritis and osteoporosis.



Over the years, everything I have written about fluoride has been confirmed in official documents published by Uncle Sam. In 1976, without knowing the term itself, I wrote about hyperparathyroidism -- the effect of fluoride on the calcium content of our blood. . . which is regulated very closely by the parathyroid gland, and results in osteoporosis. I was concerned about increasing numbers of children whose teeth would need expensive dental treatment because of fluoride damage, and concerned about people whose arthritis would be caused by excess dietary fluoride. I managed to change the law in Michigan, giving people the right to vote on the issue of water fluoridation. Michigan was the first state to repeal their mandatory fluoridation law.



However, to this day, I read about "experts" speaking for the American Dental Association or the Public Health Service, who appear before groups shouting that fluorides do not accumulate, cannot harm anyone, and are essential to life. I often wonder what it would mean to have those letters attached to my name, indicating that I'm qualified as a professional, but suspect I'd rather not. I think, perhaps, they would only mean that I'd have to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to keep my job.









[Home] [EvoluLog] [Search] [GuestBook]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feedback, thoughts and questions are always welcome at erika@ofek.com.



No copyright! (but be nice please...) EcoNomads.com composed by OfeK.